The Great First Appearance Debate- Resolved??? 1 1

[kav]

4 hours ago, gadzukes said:

Superman is looking a little thick there..

Wayne Boring and Al Plastino always drew him fat for some reason.  Boring also drew Clark's glasses knocked off to the side.  

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by kav

[sfcityduck]

5 hours ago, gadzukes said:

But not enough for CGC label notations?

That's really gotta change.

I see Action 251 doesn't have a label notation either.

I can think of a number of examples where CGC does note House ads.  Here's one:

[Lazyboy]

18 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

It finally dawned on me that you are the guy who previously took these positions under at least two previous board names.  Perhaps your "tenacity" in pushing your views is why you have to keep changing your nom de plume?

Excuse me? Although Lazyboy isn't the name I signed up with, it is the name I've used continuously since I changed it in mid-late 2005.

18 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

And DC's opinion now, and since it started publishing Archives, has been that BB 54 is clearly the first appearance.

So what you're saying is that GI Combat 68 is the first appearance of Sgt. Rock? Thanks for clarifying.

18 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Moreover, the creators have stated in interviews that BB 54 was intended to create a new superhero group (a junior JLA)

Yes, we've gone over that before. Like I said earlier, intentions are irrelevant if they don't match what is actually published.

Quote

, and that's exactly what it did.

Nope. There is no team in 54, only a team-up.

18 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

The only ground you have to stand on in arguing for BB 60 as the first appearance is not the stories told in the comics, but elevating trademark (the name) over content in a desire to inflate the value of your high grade BB 60.  Sadly, that isn't working for you.  The collecting community is more interested in the TT story then they are in inflating the value of BB 60.

I do not care about the value of either book and unfortunately do not have any high (or even mid) grade copies of BB 60.

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Lazyboy

[sfcityduck]

18 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

Excuse me? Although Lazyboy isn't the name I signed up with, it is the name I've used continuously since I changed it in mid-late 2005.

 

 

My apologies.  I thought you were a guy who used to beat this horse dead named HighStakesCollector or Blazing or thereabouts.  

[Lazyboy]

18 hours ago, kav said:

Lazyboy I'm curious in your thoughts-if BB 54 had also featured Wonder Girl, would you then consider it the first Teen Titans?  The only thing lacking would be the name, but I think unnamed characters have still been considered their first appearance eg Warlock in Thor 165.  You have the full team, together for the first time.  They dont have a team name yet because this is the first time they got together.

No, the addition of Wonder Girl to the story in 54 wouldn't change anything (except the first appearance of Wonder Girl, of course).

Unnamed characters are different. Characters can exist without names. Teams do not exist until they are actually formed.

It's not like DC didn't know how to show a real team in the first gathering of characters. The JLA were very impressively organized in their first appearance, which was in the same title and only 26 issues before the 3 teenage heroes were independently summoned to deal with the same problem.

[Abibliophobia]

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'd rather not. The market cannot make rational decisions when it doesn't have accurate information.

 

>>I think you missed my comment about “over time”.  The market will decide over enough time what is and isn’t significant.

 

The market has been duped by so-called "authorities" for decades. So, no, I'm not going to let people run around and say "Malibu Sun #13 is the first appearance of Spawn!!" or "Marvel Age #97 is the first appearance of Darkhawk!!" and not challenge them. 

>> What are you going to do to stop them?   The fools will soon be parted with their money. I’m not sure I see how you can change the market sentiment until the market collectively wills it.

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Not sure how it's 2019 and anyone...not just you, mind...is still discussing this as if it's up for debate. The first appearance of Wolverine...since roughly July of 1974...is, always has been, and always will be...barring some hitherto completely unknown to the entire comic collecting world new information...Hulk #180. It matters not what else people call it. Hulk #181 is not the first appearance of Wolverine, and never has been. Value has no bearing on any of those facts. 

I don’t think that we are disagreeing. But that’s a lot of text agreeing with me.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, Abibliophobia said:

>> What are you going to do to stop them?   The fools will soon be parted with their money. I’m not sure I see how you can change the market sentiment until the market collectively wills it.

Challenge them. Share my opinion on the matter. That is, after all, how "market sentiment" is formed: persuasive arguments.

[kav]

Respectfully I completely disagree with that statement.  Argument is not what made Hulk 181 valuable.  And these boards are pretty good evidence that argument rarely persuades anyone of anything.

[comicginger1789]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Challenge them. Share my opinion on the matter. That is, after all, how "market sentiment" is formed: persuasive arguments.

I’m not so sure on that either. Pretty sure collectively we can look at 181 and 180 side by side and see it is the superior looking cover.

BUYER:”It contains Wolvie on cover for first time!? Awesome! His first full story!? Sweet! He appears at the end of 180? Ok neat but this is his main first story so I want this one. I’ll get the one with his small appearance later. After all it’s only minor.”

pretty sure that’s the logic and always has been since the two issues came about.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, comicginger1789 said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Challenge them. Share my opinion on the matter. That is, after all, how "market sentiment" is formed: persuasive arguments.

I’m not so sure on that either. Pretty sure collectively we can look at 181 and 180 side by side and see it is the superior looking cover.

BUYER:”It contains Wolvie on cover for first time!? Awesome! His first full story!? Sweet! He appears at the end of 180? Ok neat but this is his main first story so I want this one. I’ll get the one with his small appearance later. After all it’s only minor.”

pretty sure that’s the logic and always has been since the two issues came about.

I don't know what you're referring to. My comment had to do with "Malibu Sun #13 is the first appearance of Spawn!!" and "Marvel Age #97 is the first appearance of Darkhawk!!"

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I always thought Youngblood 4 was the 1st appearance of Pitt, but looking just now at the info on CGC slabs....Pitt 1 is dated 1 month prior to Youngblood 4.

I don’t recall it being on the stands before the Youngblood back-up story though.

 

And what about pin-ups?

Spawn 1 pre-dates both....

 

[Cat]

On 9/15/2019 at 7:08 AM, Lazyboy said:

No, the addition of Wonder Girl to the story in 54 wouldn't change anything (except the first appearance of Wonder Girl, of course).

Unnamed characters are different. Characters can exist without names. Teams do not exist until they are actually formed.

It's not like DC didn't know how to show a real team in the first gathering of characters. The JLA were very impressively organized in their first appearance, which was in the same title and only 26 issues before the 3 teenage heroes were independently summoned to deal with the same problem.

 In the recent 50 Years Of Teen Titans hardcover, BB 54 is the opening story (naturally). I don't think I have the book (I know I have the JSA one, not sure if ever bought TT), so I don't know how the text piece presenting it framed it. If it presented it exicitly as the first appearance of the team, would that alter your stance? Does DCs official view of the issue affect your own opinion on it in any way, or is it something that just isn't tied to official canon and such? 

[Lazyboy]

5 hours ago, Mecha_Fantastic said:

 In the recent 50 Years Of Teen Titans hardcover, BB 54 is the opening story (naturally). I don't think I have the book (I know I have the JSA one, not sure if ever bought TT), so I don't know how the text piece presenting it framed it. If it presented it exicitly as the first appearance of the team, would that alter your stance? Does DCs official view of the issue affect your own opinion on it in any way, or is it something that just isn't tied to official canon and such? 

Nothing published after BB 54 will affect the contents of BB 54 or the reality that the story in that book does not feature any team, named or not. But the story is obviously relevant to the later formation of the team and is referenced as such in their first appearance in BB 60.

Even in that book, Robin explicitly says he set up the group after the events of BB 54 and that "Kid Flash, Aqualad and (Robin)", rather than the Teen Titans, helped the teenagers of Hatton Corners. So it's not like it was even an immediate (relatively, with a year between the books) retcon.

[bababooey]

1 hour ago, Lazyboy said:

Nothing published after BB 54 will affect the contents of BB 54 or the reality that the story in that book does not feature any team, named or not. But the story is obviously relevant to the later formation of the team and is referenced as such in their first appearance in BB 60.

Even in that book, Robin explicitly says he set up the group after the events of BB 54 and that "Kid Flash, Aqualad and (Robin)", rather than the Teen Titans, helped the teenagers of Hatton Corners. So it's not like it was even an immediate (relatively, with a year between the books) retcon.

That's the trouble with team ups of known characters; with the Avengers the team doesn't formally exist until the last page with discussion leading up to the final panel having the Wasp suggesting the name.  There's no debate as to whether the first issue is the first full appearance of the Avengers.

 I don't really have an opinion on the Teen Titans thing, could care less  but appreciate seeing examples.  

[theCapraAegagrus]

20 hours ago, bababooey said:

That's the trouble with team ups of known characters; with the Avengers the team doesn't formally exist until the last page with discussion leading up to the final panel having the Wasp suggesting the name.  There's no debate as to whether the first issue is the first full appearance of the Avengers.

 I don't really have an opinion on the Teen Titans thing, could care less  but appreciate seeing examples.  

couldn't care less*

[fastballspecial]

I've never really had a problem with Overstreet's established standards. Seems new collectors want to rewrite the standards to appease their limited viewpoint  of the hobby. 

[thunsicker]

Back in the days of run collecting none of this would have mattered.

[Electricmastro]

There’s debate as to whether Jimmy Olsen’s first comic appearance is either Action Comics #6 (November, 1938):

or Superman #13 (November, 1941):

I think more people would point to the latter on the basis of Clark saying Jimmy’s name, though I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the office-boy in the former was drawn with the intention of being Jimmy.

[thecollectron]

I've also given this one some thought. I think the OSPG noted Superman #13 as the first Jimmy Olsen appearance until around 1975 or 1976 then switched to Action #6.

The Action #6 appearance seems kind of ambiguous to me but it wouldn't surprise me if the intention was to bring him back as a recurring character and give him a name. I suppose we'll never know.

 

[Electricmastro]

Another debated first appearance: Whether Harvey Bullock first appeared in Detective Comics #441 (June, 1974):

Or Batman #361 (July, 1983):